The piece is a PBS: Frontline Special titled Poisoned Waters the segment aired on April 21st, 2009 and was directed by Rick Young. The main correspondent throughout the segment was Hedrick Smith who provided clear and concise narration in addition to asking tough and to-the-point questions of the people who were interviewed.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film wis regarding the blatant and surprisingly unregulated amount of pollution prevalent throughout much of America’s waterways. The film reveals how much of the problem, though often thought by many to be attributed to industrial waste, can be attributed to agriculture and the pollution associated with it. The film also follows the varying roles the EPA has played throughout its history within the United States from a hard hitting regulatory agency during its founding to an organization that appears to have more bark than bite.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The piece begins with a quick overview of the situation at hand. As it turns out, America’s waterways continue to face incredible amounts of unregulated pollution. Interviews with scientists from various environmental watchdog groups present their scientific finding from blubber samples of whales living in the Puget Sound to water samples of various aquifers. The scientific evidence is rather thorough and presented well throughout the piece.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film draws out a number of sustainability problems associated with water pollution within the United States many of which are overlooked by the general public. Perhaps the most concerning of these problem is the fact that chemicals and science is overtaking regulation. Why is this concerning in particular? Chemicals known as endocrine disruptors which are prevalent in many household products are compound which have the capacity to modify or alter many of our biologic functions. The negative effects of these compounds can already be seen in many ecosystems with the prevalence of mutated frogs and fish. Our current water treatment facilities do not have the capacity to remove many of these compounds from sewage and many of these chemicals consequently end up right back in our drinking water. Even more alarming is the fact that tests of the water supply post treatment, i.e. eater considered safe for human consumption has tested positive for hundreds of these endocrine disruptors. It is also important to keep in mind the fact that these are only known endocrine disruptors, one can only imagine how many pollutants are in our drinking water that we have not even identified yet. How can we possibly have faith in the processes and regulations that ensure us clean drinking water when we haven’t even fully identified what we’re trying to remove? This is yet another example of how regulations and subsequent enforcement are not only antiquated, yet lack the necessary power to prevent environmental degradation. Even more interesting is how the role of the EPA has changed over the years. Initially started during the Nixon Presidency, it is apparent that the foundation of the organization was more of a political move than anything else. Surprisingly enough however, the organization blossomed into a strong, aggressive organization with strong bi-partisan support. In fact, upon passing regulations, despite a presidential veto that was overruled, a pattern of strong policy and equally strong enforcement emerged. This strong political momentum was mirrored by equally enthusiastic public support. With this combination of strong public and political support and awareness the EPA was able to implement aggressive regulatory measures and was visibly able to reduce damage to many ecosystems. This all however went downhill, at least for the Chesapeake Bay Area during the Reagan era, a heavy period of deregulation; EPA policy was shifted to a voluntary basis. Besides basically neutering the organization, as one would expect, voluntary compliance was a disaster and the Chesapeake Bay Area reverted to the being a heavily polluted body of water.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The film features a variety of interviews with experts in many different fields related to water quality. Interviews with whale and ocean experts conducting research in the Puget Sound area reveal the prevalence of PCB’s in the blubber content of whales. Much like frogs and fish who serve as the “canaries” of aquatic ecosystems, compounds found in apex predators such as the Orca are indicative of imbalances in the water. The piece also features studies of water samples collected at aquifers ready for human consumption. Causes of much concern, these studies reveal a high concentration of endocrine disruptors in water that is supposedly safe for human consumption. Studies of other rivers and aquatic systems show similarly bleak results echoing the strong scientific evidence of the rest of the segment.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I am rather convinced by most of the evidence presented in the segment. The only segments I do not find as compelling are the interviews with many of the company representatives. As one would expect, many corporations often fight allegations of pollution by citing that there are too many variables to singularly blame one entity over another. Of course, this claim seems rather absurd considering the fact that the highest concentrations of pollutants often surround these structures such as cramped overcrowded chicken coops and chemical plant drainage pipes. Clearly, these interviews, mostly done by company representatives are a rather weak attempt to avoid responsibility and potential regulation of the pollution these companies cause.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why
The piece best addresses those who are concerned with the well being of our ecosystems particularly of our water bodies. Yet in this same context, the issues brought to light in the segment affect not only those who live around bodies of water but everyone as the problems even affect the very water we are all consuming. Those who are part of the organization responsible for the damage may not view the piece as favorably as it may attack their sources of livelihood or company profits.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The piece is highly informative and factual. It is an excellent environmental education tool and brings to light many current issues surrounding continued pollution of our water supply. In addition to stating obvious sources of pollution such as waste generated from agriculture and industry, the piece also details policy errors. In particular, the segment discusses how the role of the EPA changed from one of strict and effective policy to one of voluntary compliance.
9. What kind of action points of intervention are suggested by the film. If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can’t imagine being effective.
The film did not suggest any direct intervention though it did reveal many shortcomings in current infrastructure that allows existing harmful practices to flourish and continue. One of the biggest sources of concern included current water regulations. According to the piece, the rate at which new chemicals and compounds are being synthesized and subsequently introduced into our water systems is quickly outpacing research on the their harmful effects. This trend simply cannot be allowed to continue. How can we possibly have faith in the long term health effects of our water supply if we’re not even aware of what to remove from our water supplies? Even more questionable is the fact that most first world country’s boast that their water supplies are one of the best and safest in the world. Lastly, the shift from the hardline and aggressive policies of the EPA during its founding to one of voluntary compliance and little to no regulatory power diminishes much of the capacity of the EPA as an effective regulatory entity.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The fact that endocrine disruptors may be prevalent in drinking water inspired me to research a little bit about the findings of these compounds in drinking water. A study conducted by the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology discovered the prevalence of a variety of different endocrine disruptors in municipal drinking water. Even more concerning perhaps was the lack of strict regulation of these compounds. Substances cited as endocrine disruptors included pesticides, biocides, and synthetic hormones such as estrogen. The apparent lack of teeth in recent EPA regulations prompted me to investigate legislation passed by the organization. The last piece of proposed legislation is the California Desert Protection Act of 2010. This legislation unfortunately has not even been turned into law and though highly beneficial it does not address pressing issues such as water pollution or curbing industrial pollution. Although a step in the right direction as far as fostering sustainable energy growth, in all, the legislation seems fairly safe and more geared towards conserving tourism areas and promoting sustainable energy rather than directly curbing pollution. Links
PBS Frontline: Poisoned Waters
1. Title, director and release year?
The piece is a PBS: Frontline Special titled Poisoned Waters the segment aired on April 21st, 2009 and was directed by Rick Young. The main correspondent throughout the segment was Hedrick Smith who provided clear and concise narration in addition to asking tough and to-the-point questions of the people who were interviewed.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film wis regarding the blatant and surprisingly unregulated amount of pollution prevalent throughout much of America’s waterways. The film reveals how much of the problem, though often thought by many to be attributed to industrial waste, can be attributed to agriculture and the pollution associated with it. The film also follows the varying roles the EPA has played throughout its history within the United States from a hard hitting regulatory agency during its founding to an organization that appears to have more bark than bite.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The piece begins with a quick overview of the situation at hand. As it turns out, America’s waterways continue to face incredible amounts of unregulated pollution. Interviews with scientists from various environmental watchdog groups present their scientific finding from blubber samples of whales living in the Puget Sound to water samples of various aquifers. The scientific evidence is rather thorough and presented well throughout the piece.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film draws out a number of sustainability problems associated with water pollution within the United States many of which are overlooked by the general public. Perhaps the most concerning of these problem is the fact that chemicals and science is overtaking regulation. Why is this concerning in particular? Chemicals known as endocrine disruptors which are prevalent in many household products are compound which have the capacity to modify or alter many of our biologic functions. The negative effects of these compounds can already be seen in many ecosystems with the prevalence of mutated frogs and fish. Our current water treatment facilities do not have the capacity to remove many of these compounds from sewage and many of these chemicals consequently end up right back in our drinking water. Even more alarming is the fact that tests of the water supply post treatment, i.e. eater considered safe for human consumption has tested positive for hundreds of these endocrine disruptors. It is also important to keep in mind the fact that these are only known endocrine disruptors, one can only imagine how many pollutants are in our drinking water that we have not even identified yet. How can we possibly have faith in the processes and regulations that ensure us clean drinking water when we haven’t even fully identified what we’re trying to remove? This is yet another example of how regulations and subsequent enforcement are not only antiquated, yet lack the necessary power to prevent environmental degradation.
Even more interesting is how the role of the EPA has changed over the years. Initially started during the Nixon Presidency, it is apparent that the foundation of the organization was more of a political move than anything else. Surprisingly enough however, the organization blossomed into a strong, aggressive organization with strong bi-partisan support. In fact, upon passing regulations, despite a presidential veto that was overruled, a pattern of strong policy and equally strong enforcement emerged. This strong political momentum was mirrored by equally enthusiastic public support. With this combination of strong public and political support and awareness the EPA was able to implement aggressive regulatory measures and was visibly able to reduce damage to many ecosystems. This all however went downhill, at least for the Chesapeake Bay Area during the Reagan era, a heavy period of deregulation; EPA policy was shifted to a voluntary basis. Besides basically neutering the organization, as one would expect, voluntary compliance was a disaster and the Chesapeake Bay Area reverted to the being a heavily polluted body of water.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The film features a variety of interviews with experts in many different fields related to water quality. Interviews with whale and ocean experts conducting research in the Puget Sound area reveal the prevalence of PCB’s in the blubber content of whales. Much like frogs and fish who serve as the “canaries” of aquatic ecosystems, compounds found in apex predators such as the Orca are indicative of imbalances in the water. The piece also features studies of water samples collected at aquifers ready for human consumption. Causes of much concern, these studies reveal a high concentration of endocrine disruptors in water that is supposedly safe for human consumption. Studies of other rivers and aquatic systems show similarly bleak results echoing the strong scientific evidence of the rest of the segment.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I am rather convinced by most of the evidence presented in the segment. The only segments I do not find as compelling are the interviews with many of the company representatives. As one would expect, many corporations often fight allegations of pollution by citing that there are too many variables to singularly blame one entity over another. Of course, this claim seems rather absurd considering the fact that the highest concentrations of pollutants often surround these structures such as cramped overcrowded chicken coops and chemical plant drainage pipes. Clearly, these interviews, mostly done by company representatives are a rather weak attempt to avoid responsibility and potential regulation of the pollution these companies cause.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why
The piece best addresses those who are concerned with the well being of our ecosystems particularly of our water bodies. Yet in this same context, the issues brought to light in the segment affect not only those who live around bodies of water but everyone as the problems even affect the very water we are all consuming. Those who are part of the organization responsible for the damage may not view the piece as favorably as it may attack their sources of livelihood or company profits.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The piece is highly informative and factual. It is an excellent environmental education tool and brings to light many current issues surrounding continued pollution of our water supply. In addition to stating obvious sources of pollution such as waste generated from agriculture and industry, the piece also details policy errors. In particular, the segment discusses how the role of the EPA changed from one of strict and effective policy to one of voluntary compliance.
9. What kind of action points of intervention are suggested by the film. If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can’t imagine being effective.
The film did not suggest any direct intervention though it did reveal many shortcomings in current infrastructure that allows existing harmful practices to flourish and continue. One of the biggest sources of concern included current water regulations. According to the piece, the rate at which new chemicals and compounds are being synthesized and subsequently introduced into our water systems is quickly outpacing research on the their harmful effects. This trend simply cannot be allowed to continue. How can we possibly have faith in the long term health effects of our water supply if we’re not even aware of what to remove from our water supplies? Even more questionable is the fact that most first world country’s boast that their water supplies are one of the best and safest in the world. Lastly, the shift from the hardline and aggressive policies of the EPA during its founding to one of voluntary compliance and little to no regulatory power diminishes much of the capacity of the EPA as an effective regulatory entity.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The fact that endocrine disruptors may be prevalent in drinking water inspired me to research a little bit about the findings of these compounds in drinking water. A study conducted by the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology discovered the prevalence of a variety of different endocrine disruptors in municipal drinking water. Even more concerning perhaps was the lack of strict regulation of these compounds. Substances cited as endocrine disruptors included pesticides, biocides, and synthetic hormones such as estrogen. The apparent lack of teeth in recent EPA regulations prompted me to investigate legislation passed by the organization. The last piece of proposed legislation is the California Desert Protection Act of 2010. This legislation unfortunately has not even been turned into law and though highly beneficial it does not address pressing issues such as water pollution or curbing industrial pollution. Although a step in the right direction as far as fostering sustainable energy growth, in all, the legislation seems fairly safe and more geared towards conserving tourism areas and promoting sustainable energy rather than directly curbing pollution.
Links
http://ec.europa.eu/research/endocrine/pdf/drinking_water_en.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Desert_Protection_Act_of_2010